[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: WNPP cleanup procedures



Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:

> > > for any action; however, if I saw good reason from the history of a
> > > bug report to not do anything, then I didn't write mail at all.
>  
> > By RFP you mean ITA?
> 
> No, I meant: Request for Packages and Intend to Package.

Oh; I'm thinking specifically only about an ITA and a IFP.

The reason for focusing on these is that an ITA or IFP functions as a
brake on other Debian developers who may want to take over that
package.  So if the ITA/IFP is lame, and nothing will happen by
whoever posted it, we should get it back to RFA/O/RFP asap so that
other Debian developers who may be interested can get it.

> Well, there is a list of ITA packages. Of course, you need to take a
> look into the bug report if you want to see whether it's O/ITA or
> RFA/ITA.

Where is this list?

> Well, I don't like Transfer, and I also don't like to change one of
> them away. Both would be better, as then one can see whether it's just
> an "old bug report", or the new one.

Yeah, I'm just trying to think of a new verb. :)

Nothing requires changing existing reports; I think first the goal
should be to figure out "how should this look", and only after that is
it worthwhile figuring out how to transition.



Reply to: